Deseret News | Sore losers won't let go in California

Reader comments
Sore losers won't let go in California

714 comments | Read story

Give it a REST! | 2:44 p.m. Dec. 4, 2008

The human race has lasted this long because of the non-tolerance of this and other forms of devient behavior.

I wouldn't say they are recruiting. I'd say they are brainwashing themselves, and others by slow and sequential subversions in our schools, television, goevernment, churches and now marriage.

They infiltrate the very institutions that protect us from all sorts of devient events.

And how do we protect our selves? WE VOTE! And they did in California, and other states.

The compassion of americans can only stretch so far, and I think Prop 8 has pushed the gay agenda way to far.

This has opened many americans EYES to the growing threat to our way of life. And the negative ripple effect, may be more than any one could have perdicted.

This conflict of ideas only weakens the moral fabric of our society. If you don't agree just look at whats happening to the economy.

This has been brought on by many factors, but the underlying issue is the loss of old fasioned values. Rememeber the boy scout motto .Or due you just laugh. If you do, that proves my point.

realitycheck | 2:46 p.m. Dec. 4, 2008

the problem with Dave is he thinks that only a man and a woman can raise children properly and that any other type of situation is bad for the child.

well guess what. There are MILLIONS of homes with only one parent. MILLIONS of children shuttled from the home of one parent to the home of the other. MILLIONS of kids who have only one parent due to deaths. MILLIONS of kids that need a home because they are orphans.

But Dave doesn't want any of that. He wants one father and one mother and everything else is wrong.

Dave strikes me as one of those mormons that just pumps out kids, and believes the only reason for anyone to get married is so they can produce children.

Is that a fair statement, Dave? Marriage is ONLY so children can be produced?

Lots of orphans would love a stable gay household, Dave. They just want to be loved... and gays can do that as well (or maybe better) than you, Dave. They would have less children and would marry for love. You sound like you got married so you could pump out children. How sad for your wife....

Are you kidding here.. | 2:51 p.m. Dec. 4, 2008

That would have been a well-thoughout response, but facts are facts. I am not a homosexual, but a man married to a woman who under David's definition has the ability to procreate, but chooses not to. I guess that makes me Norway David? Not officially the enemy, but more or less unimportant.

Obviously I am "accepting" of a heterosexual life, and also have the knowledge, wisdom, self-confidence and compassion to be "accepting" of any homosexual life. Unlike David I do not find myself qualified to tell another human that their love or affection for another human is any less worthy of classification than mine is. That because they are a homosexual they cannot possible be a qualified parent. Bigot - a person prejuiced to opinions other than his own. Yes, I am prejuiced to David's self-righteous opinion on this issue, no question. Any under that definition you would be a what? Clearly not accepting of all opinions, so I guess also in the bigot category. I think I'll be on the side of bigotry hoping for equal rights for all humans, no complaint there.

Comments continue below

realitycheck | 3:30 p.m. Dec. 4, 2008

Couldn't have summed up Dave better myself.

Next Please!! | 3:55 p.m. Dec. 4, 2008

To compare a problem in the state of families today, with a solution for gay adaption is the worst kind of warped train of thought. The solution for the american family is to incourage and support the famliy. Not twist and de-value it.

This twisted thought of; their better off, sounds like the slave traders who said these slaves are much better cared for when under my watch.

Of course this was false, but in some ways could be debated to their point.

You've got to put more value in the human condition. We on the other side have just as much right to reject your arguements as you do ours.

I think the ego is hard to reason with, and this is why you reject opposing points of view. This doesn't mean the worlds flat! It just means the worlds oceans are wet. And you as much as you might argue the point, the majority will reject it.

NORMAL | 4:05 p.m. Dec. 4, 2008

Sin is offensive to God. Ask him why it is. If it's offensive to God, why should I not also take offense to it.

And Yes it does affect me. When it affects our children, and their environment in which they are to live in, yes it affects me. Someone just posted a prediction that in 5 or 10 years, the rising generation will "push for same-sex marriage". I hope the addiction doesn't spread to our youth. So we will continue to fight against it.

Anonymous | 4:15 p.m. Dec. 4, 2008

"Crybabies abound | 12:12 p.m. Dec. 4, 2008
There is a lot of whining and crying going on about this whole debate...NEWS FLASH - we live in a democracy where the majority rules."

Sorry - go read the onstitution. We live in a Republic. Majority does not rule. The Constitution rules.

Geesh. Where were these people educated?

Anonymous | 4:20 p.m. Dec. 4, 2008

NORMAL | 8:43 a.m. Dec. 4, 2008
"I just hope that same-sex couples are NEVER allowed to adopt children. Children should have the right to be raised NORMAL!"

The vote in California had absolutely NOTHING to do with keeping gays from adopting. In fact, it is state LAW that gays cannot be discriminated against if they want to adopt. If you thought this was about adoption, you were totally misled.

David | 4:20 p.m. Dec. 4, 2008

I find it humorous that ad hominem is the only recourse to oppose my argument calling me a "bigot" when you know nothing about me. When I stated the words "discarding outliers" you were lost to the definition used in STATISTICS and did not refer to any event occurring to the individuals themselves. I defined marriage as per various legal sources including the Supreme Court in Loving v. Virginia and California Family code 301 and you state such as my personal definition. You are wrong since they are simply quoted definitions of the courts. You might also want to look up the Maryland Supreme Court ruling regarding gay marriage.
Now for the kick in the pants, I voted for gay marriage and the likes of you make me wonder about that decision since it seems the "no" crowd is loaded with bigots and hatemongers.
Perhaps you desire to be compared to an animal, but I think you better than that. Perhaps you missed that message, but such is not my problem.

NORMAL | 4:24 p.m. Dec. 4, 2008

Ask God why he created humans who have an affection for the same sex and can find love in a homosexual relationship? Then pray to God and ask that he has not instilled this same innate trait with any of your children, for it seems they could not do anything more offensive in their lifetime to disappoint you.

I agree with the earlier comment. The youth of the world have luckily been raised with much more of a tolerance towards other human beings, your children withstanding. They have a much larger ability to feel compassion and understanding for differences in their friends, family & neighbors. Any the ability to be happy that another human has found love, no matter with the opposite sex or not.

I would hope that the addiction of non-tolerance that you have for fellow human beings will not spread to our youth, and they will not blindly follow old prejudices, but rather build their own beliefs and opinions.

David | 4:31 p.m. Dec. 4, 2008

No realitycheck and others, if you actually bothered to read my posts you would see that I repeatedly stated that a husband and a wife in a marriage is the IDEAL/PREFERRED situation for children but that other family dynamics are acceptable. You seem to deny the fact, look at the numbers, that young girls in single parent home are more likely to get pregnant at a younger age than their *two parent counterparts. You deny that drug abuse is also more common in single parent homes than two parent homes. You deny that graduation rates of children raised in single parent homes are lower. The list goes on, but you ignore that reality. Single parent family homes are not ideal, just ask a single parent, but sometimes that is the situation one is dealt or choses. The point being that we have an ideal and it is called marriage.

For some reason, you see this as a redefinition of family which is ludicrous. Family has always meant different things to different people. ACT 1 of Arkansas was more vulgar than Prop 8 yet silence on that.

*by two parent home I refer to one man + one woman and married.

re realitycheck 2:46 pm | 4:36 p.m. Dec. 4, 2008

how can you expect respect for your opinion when you hypocritically blast the mormons for their family ideals.
You suggested that Dave doesn't want any of that. Refering to MILLIONS of single parenting and split parenting households. I would have to agree with the opinion you forced on Dave. The world would be a wonderful place if families weren't split up over divorce, death, or any other reason. In an ideal world every child would be loved by his/her parents. His/her parents would love eachother in this world. But the world isn't ideal.
Looks like realitycheck 2:46 pm was the person who needs a reality check. How sad for you.

Anonymous | 7:15 p.m. Dec. 4, 2008

"The Church of Jesus Christ isnï¿½t as loved and accepted as Utahnï¿½s thought."

Oh, we're well aware of how much you hate us. Isn't it funny how the Catholic church also stood up with Prop. 8, yet the LDS church is the main target? LDS people make up approximately 5% of California's population. The bishops' statistics say that Catholics make up 28.6% of California's population. Catholics make up over 1/6 of the entire world's population. No matter what you say, that is a heck of a lot of people.

The fact is, everyone is discriminated against in one way or another, minority or not.

Anonymous | 7:39 p.m. Dec. 4, 2008

"Bigot - a person prejudiced to opinions other than his own. Yes, I am prejudiced to David's self-righteous opinion on this issue, no question. Any under that definition you would be a what? Clearly not accepting of all opinions, so I guess also in the bigot category." -Are you kidding here

Sweet contradiction. You clearly state that you are prejudiced to David's opinion, and then imply that he is a bigot, right after defining a bigot and implying that he should be accepting of all opinions. If we're going to go into definitions other than the definition of marriage, well I've got a definition for you.

Hypocrite - A person who acts in contradiction to his or her stated beliefs.

Oh and, one more.

Smug - The state of having an inflated sense of self importance.

We're all bigots when it comes down to the straight definition. I might as well say, "You human. I'm human, but I'll be on the straight human side" to a gay person. I'd essentially have said the same thing you just said to David. Prop. 8 supporters aren't the only ones on high horses, we're all playing polo in the clouds.

The persecuted become | 7:43 p.m. Dec. 4, 2008

the "persecutors". The LDS should know more than most about persecution. In fact, it seems they dwell on it a lot. So why are they confused about this now?

andrew | 8:32 p.m. Dec. 4, 2008

"They just want to be loved... and gays can do that as well (or maybe better) than you, Dave."

that was a shot way below the belt. how dare you question anybody's ability to love? i stand on the gay side with this too, so dont tell me that im one sided because i do not question their love. anyone who attacks someone for ability to love is taking it too far. way too far.

NORMAL | 9:46 p.m. Dec. 4, 2008

I don't have a non-tolerance to other people. I have a non-tolerance for sin though. And that is what this is about.

Do you believe in God? Do you believe in the Bible? I'd like to hear from someone who believes in these things and yet somehow believes that this behavior is normal.

What a peculiar people | 10:06 p.m. Dec. 4, 2008

How strange we LDS are...Marriage between a man and women...Rights for the unborn... A belief in a God who has a plan for us...Belief in a Savior who forgives us and allows us to progress.... Morals....Values....Standards.

Seems so strange huh? Yes, I think I will run from the "strange" and accept the "normal". I will "evolve" because this is the year 2008. Why wouldn't God do the same? Doesn't He believe that everyone should have the right to love? Doesn't He know that all that other stuff is old fashioned. This is the 21st Century!

Those of you who oppose these things should tell Him. Or tell one of your LDS friends to tell Him for you, since you probably don't believe in Him.

All of you who have a problem with the LDS people and the Church's beliefs need to take it up with God since it's his Law and His Church. There is no argument for that.

Nobody | 1:58 a.m. Dec. 5, 2008

Nobody is being denied the opportunity to marry. Any man can marry a woman and any woman can marry a man regardless of sexual preference. Who is being descriminated against?

Many people are born with mental disorders, tendencies, inabilities, & desires. Just because they exist, doesn't make them good for society. I have the tendency to get angry. It doesn't mean the laws should change to accomodate my problem. Homosexuality is a problem.

kathy | 3:55 a.m. Dec. 5, 2008

I'm a straight, married mother of 2, and I wondered why Prop 8 was even on the ballot. Since when do we hate on people who love each other and take away something from them that we have ourselves? I didn't know we could still do that in this country in this day and age. I, for one, would rather have them marry each other, than trying to marry one of us in order to fit in and not be part of the "gay agenda," whatever that means. I've driven past a few protests and have never seen anything but peaceful protest, but have seen people with signs across the street with "homo-fascists" or "gay = pervert". That is called HATE, and I'd rather not have my children live in a world of hate. Everyone knows there are extremists on both sides. The smart people didn't accuse MLK and his friends of being one of the extremists of the Civil Rights Movement (and there were plenty of those) or accuse him of being a whiner either.

Paul | 4:17 a.m. Dec. 5, 2008

Proposition 8 passed I think that is the end of the story. however peaceful protest is allowed and we cant call the ones who protest peacefully 'sore losers' , just the ones who go to extremes as in all areas of society.

applejacks | 4:26 a.m. Dec. 5, 2008

"Nobody is being denied the opportunity to marry. Any man can marry a woman and any woman can marry a man regardless of sexual preference. Who is being descriminated against?"

And 60 years ago, no one was being discriminated against either. Everyone had the same and equal right of marrying a person of their own race, regardless of their race. Who was being discriminated against?

Straight not narrow. | 4:30 a.m. Dec. 5, 2008

Nobody says: "Nobody is being denied the opportunity to marry. Any man can marry a woman and any woman can marry a man regardless of sexual preference. Who is being descriminated against?"

And who should be one of those straight people whom a homosexual chooses to marry to try to confirm to your rules and regulations? Perhaps it should be you... you certainly have it coming.

RR | 5:20 a.m. Dec. 5, 2008

This issue is the same to me as nude models in school. Would you want your daughter to be drawn and then displayed in school, or possibly in offices? Would you want your kids to also be gay, and you will never have any offspring to your name and your family heritage will die?

I swear, when you think this world can't get any worse, it gets worse, because people don't think anything through anymore, they just LOVE what is popular, trendy, worldly, and hip, even if it makes ZERO sense.

John K | 5:48 a.m. Dec. 5, 2008

This is a good story, Lee. I'm on the other side of the issue -- give 'em the chance to marry -- but citing all the other states that have passed similar resolutions is what it is, data. It's hard to argue with all these votes. My own opinion is that gay people are entering into a period where they will seek equality, just like blacks did in the 1960s. Anything the rest of us can do to encourage stable committed relationships, including gay marriage, is worth doing. But gay people should be careful what they wish for -- with gay marriage comes gay divorce, not likely to be much fun.

David | 8:06 a.m. Dec. 5, 2008

Prop 8 isn't about wanting a homosexual to marry a heterosexual. Such would be absolutely ridiculous. It is simply about reinforcing the definition ALREADY in place with California Family Code 301. It is about validating Loving v. Virginia which stated that survival of the species was the justification for marriage. We also ALREADY have domestic partnership registry in California. I would far have preferred that monies be used to fight ACT 1 in Arkansas or add D/P registries in other states over the redundancy in California which still would NOT have dealt with FEDERAL issues.

Democracy? | 8:33 a.m. Dec. 5, 2008

We don't live in a society where the majority rules? Hmmm....why then is gay marriage banned in Californa (and many other states)? BECAUSE THE MAJORITY VOTED AGAINST IT AND NOW IT'S AGAINST THE LAW.

Most of these people were educated the great state of Utahr...enough said.

Why Prop 8? Easy! | 9:12 a.m. Dec. 5, 2008

The right wing Churches would crumble and die if they didn't have gay people to demonize and discriminate against. It is a necessary component of their faith.

Boyd | 9:45 a.m. Dec. 5, 2008

@ Cats:

Funny how you mention religious freedom and then list a litany of things which have nothing to do with religious freedom. A church can not simply do whatever it feels like, running roughshod like it owns the world.

The government has not forced the Catholic charities to abolish adoption practices--not a religious right since it has nothing to do with religion. The charities did not want to adhere to state law and subsequently decided to eliminate the adoption service.

I have not heard about the Protestant church losing its tax exempt status, so I will have to look that one up. Of the cases you mentioned, that is the only one which bears any weight under your "freedom of religion" argument. The other two had nothing to do with religion whatsoever.

Religious freedom goes both ways. In the public sector (such as public schools), your religious views are just as valid as mine. If there are some cases where parents were not allowed to make decisions, they should be handled appropriately by the school.

Beeswax | 10:39 a.m. Dec. 5, 2008

Let's see who the "sore losers" are when the California Supreme Court overturns Proposition H8. Remember, it ain't over 'til the fat lady sings.

re: normal | 10:57 a.m. Dec. 5, 2008

"Do you believe in God? Do you believe in the Bible? I'd like to hear from someone who believes in these things and yet somehow believes that this behavior is normal."

The fact is you would not "like to hear from someone who believes in these things..." you would like to TALK to them and set them straight. I learned a long time ago that the "believers" don't want to listen or learn. They want to preach and change. That's all. They "know" the truth and want others to "know" the truth. No compassion, no caring, no empathy. Only setting people straight by their "truth".

I am one of those that you say you would like to talk to. I've learned better.

re: RR | 11:01 a.m. Dec. 5, 2008

"Would you want your kids to also be gay, and you will never have any offspring to your name and your family heritage will die?"

The issue of homosexuality needs to be decided by what the parents of gays want? That's a new spin on the nature/nurture question.......

Being | 11:26 a.m. Dec. 5, 2008

a straight male, and married, I can't think of how gay marriage is going to affect me. At all.
You really have to use your imagination to conjure up the ways that gays might be harmful.

And BTW, all you holier-than-thou religious folk, who get warm and fuzzy thinking that you are somehow morally superior to gays----think again.
Most gays I know are far more moral and upstanding that many Mormons I know.
It's a good thing you've got the gay thing to make you feel better about yourselves, otherwise you might have to look in the mirror someday.

Emma | 12:08 p.m. Dec. 5, 2008

Gay marriage would not affect specifics marriages, but it would impact the very core of the definition of marriage and its purpose. When a couple is married a the woman becomes pregnant, the law sees the child as belonging to the husband. Why? Because marriage protects the child. If that same woman was unmarried, the court would require either validation by the male of paternity and/or a paternity test. Marriage IS about protecting the child even if some couples don't have children by choice or by nature. Gay couples NEVER have such questions that need to be dealt with. They have no need for marriage but do deserve legal protection.

Re: Beeswax | 12:48 p.m. Dec. 5, 2008

No, it's not over until the gays get what they want, regardless of what the majority votes for. So, when this goes to the people to decide, and they decide twice to ban gay marriage, the gay community won't accept that and they then take it to the Supreme Court.

No, it's not over when the fat lady sings, unless she's a lesbian...it's not over until the gays cry enough and whine enough until they get their way.

How can the Courts? | 1:18 p.m. Dec. 5, 2008

It is an ammendment which is binding for California! Understanding of basic government would be helpful. Amendments to the constitutions are how we the people can have "The Will" of our society. Courts say what is binding according to what is in the Constitutions (Cali in this case) so they now have to use the "ammendment" to use as standard.

Boyd | 1:35 p.m. Dec. 5, 2008

@ Re: Beeswax (12:48pm):

Um ... isn't that the definition of American politics? Do you think African-Americans should have given up after the Jim Crow laws ("Hey, you have equal access to drinking fountains, what's the big problem?")?

Or Women's Suffrage?

Or changing the legal age for consuming alcohol?

Or people fighting for universal health care?

America is all about change, not sticking to the traditional mindset, trying new things (some which work, some which do not).

Don't like it? Move to China or Iran. (*note that the preceding sentence is meant to be sarcastic and ironic)

Steve | 3:01 p.m. Dec. 5, 2008

While I am sick and tired of this issue, I just have to laugh that these people still keep calling marriage "hatred and lies" because it doesnt agree with them. Gee, they are whiners!!

LDS in Seattle | 3:51 p.m. Dec. 5, 2008

I work with many gay people and they are great. I wish them no ill will. However, anyone who can honestly tell me that they believe in the Bible, have read it, and still believe that homosexuality is not immoral in God's eyes is either; 1) delusional (reading what they want to read), 2) rebellious (don't care how God sees it), or 3) dishonest (knows what it says, but claims otherwise).

I really don't know how much of gayness is in-born and how much is choice (or a product of events). I don't think anyone knows. What I do know is that it is clearly against God's word. Either you accept the Bible, or you don't.

Now for those who completely reject the Bible and/or believe only certain parts of it, that is your right. But do not begrudge others their beliefs.

Re: Boyd | 3:58 p.m. Dec. 5, 2008

While I agree that America is about pushing for new heights, I also believe that not all change is good. To lower the legal drinking age, for example, would be a move in the wrong direction. Universal health care sounds good on the surface, but please site me one example of where and when this works. Even in countries where immigration is pretty much illegal, it is failing.

Gay marriage is one more example of a move in the wrong direction.

(Not all) change is good.

Suppose someone decided a good idea would be to legalize murder or bring back burning gays at the stake? Also bad ideas.

Let's use our best judgment.

realitycheck | 4:01 p.m. Dec. 5, 2008

some of you say "a mom and a dad is best for children". Well, many families are not configured like that. And that will continue. Live with it.

many of you say "homosexuality is a sin". It may be a sin in your eyes, but your idea of sin and my idea of sin differ significantly. You probably think sex out of wedlock is a sin, and that's just ridiculous. God made sex fun for a reason. And you'd be suprised how little gays care about sex.

Some of you say gays shouldn't be allowed to adopt. Since there are easily 1 million children in need of a loving home, unless you're going to take care of them all then you're simply being ignorant.

Some of you seem to think that the human race will go extinct if homosexuality continues. Well, sorry to burst your bubble but homosexuality has been around since the beginning of time. And yet we're all still here.

Homosexuality represents 2% of the world population. That's 134,000,000 people. They're not going away, and would like the same rights as the rest of us.

what is your problem? Stop being so religious and get logical.

118 years is not that long ago | 4:24 p.m. Dec. 5, 2008

Why can't Mormons who want to preserve the heaven-ordained institution of marriage by disallowing gays to marry see the irony (notice I didn't say hypocrisy) in their beliefs?
Are you all that history-deficient?

You can read the actual text of the 1890 Manifesto, in which the LDS Church (the minority in this case) acquiesced to the will of the majority in the U.S. (non-Mormons).

The facts are out there.
If you can't see the parallels to the whole Prop 8 thing, then I don't know what to tell you.

Boyd | 4:24 p.m. Dec. 5, 2008

@ re: Boyd (3:58pm):

Murder harms people and does considerable damage; same-sex marriage does neither. I know people are arguing that it will harm the social fabric or the institution of marriage, but there is no proof of that. If anything, divorce is far more harmful to both social fabric and marriage, but we don't see amendments being brought forth to ban divorce.

My argument wasn't that we should reduce the age of consent or obtain universal health care--it was to point out that we are a country based out of anything BUT tradition. Our country was created by rebels fighting against the authoritative crown of England (and the Church of England).

If the minority were to simply accept the majority's viewpoint, I would argue that doing so would be a completely unpatriotic thing, contrary to the very spirit in which our country was founded upon.

Dear LDS in Seattle | 4:36 p.m. Dec. 5, 2008

"Now for those who completely reject the Bible and/or believe only certain parts of it, that is your right. But do not begrudge others their beliefs. "

The LDS church only believes certain parts of the Bible. Do women have their head covered in church? No. Do women speak in Church? yes. These teachings are in the New Testament.

Do not throw stones.

realitycheck | 4:40 p.m. Dec. 5, 2008

It's amusing that you all seem to think marriage is only about children, yet there are millions of children with unmarried parents. They still get raised just fine. Both my sons have 2 children each with their girlfriends and each lives as a family, and loves and raises their children just fine. They just chose not to have a wedding.

Marriage isn't required to have a happy loving family. It's just a piece of paper. The commitment is in your heart, not some piece of paper.

So your "marriage is about children" argument loses another flimsy support...

By the way - David - when I said gays could love children as well (or better) than you, I merely meant many are as capable (or more capable) than you. And I'm sure the same applies to me. So don't take it the wrong way. My point was that you not discredit them entirely in the adoption arena. They can provide a better home than many (as seen in the news every day.)

nozem 63 | 5:17 p.m. Dec. 5, 2008

I thought being gay was a choice, not a right.

LDS in Seattle | 6:09 p.m. Dec. 5, 2008

True, women no longer have their heads covered in church, and you will find other examples of an odd verse here or there with other such counsel, but there are 15 passages in both the Old and New Testament that condemn homosexuality. I think that's pretty clear.

Beyond that, modern prophets and apostles in the church have affirmed that God has not changed His position on this. Now you may not wish to accept what the LDS leaders say - that's your choice and you don't have to belong to that particular church.

But to try to force all people to believe your way - it just isn't going to happen.

Re: realitycheck @ 4:40 pm | 6:14 p.m. Dec. 5, 2008

You say,

"Marriage isn't required to have a happy, loving family. It's just a piece of paper. The commitment is in your heart, not some piece of paper."

This is exactly what the left has been saying for years. Thank you for making my point!

Marriage means nothing to the "progressives." So why push gay marriage? It's not about marriage at all. It's 100% about trying to change the majority's minds and hearts that homosexuality in natural, normal and moral.

At least you are being honest about it. I wish all of those protesting in California would please stop the charade and just say, "we want everyone to think we are normal."

That's what this has always been about. It's never been about marriage.

adoption | 6:16 p.m. Dec. 5, 2008

gays aren't discredited in the adoption arena. there are pleanty of gays adopting children. it's not illegal. it's just as hard for a single male to adopt. believe me I'm a single male who has adopted.

count me on the side of | 6:30 p.m. Dec. 5, 2008

the gays.
I'll always stand up against the tyranny and the hypocrisy of the religious.
Enjoy your win, Mormons, because it's not going to last. The world moves on without you...

Add your comment

Comments are monitored. Any comments found to be abusive, offensive, off-topic, misrepresentative, more than 200 words or containing URLs will not be posted.

Words Remaining

E-mail address: For internal use only. We may want to contact you to publish your comment (not your e-mail address) in the newspaper or for a separate story idea.